Rami Malek irritates, Russell Crowe impresses, and Michael Shannon is underutilized in Nuremberg, a World-War II-era courtroom drama that looks and operates exactly like the trailers suggest: it’s a movie that would have been amazing had it been released three decades earlier.
Set almost entirely inside a prison, the movie largely focuses on the relationship between imprisoned Nazi commander Hermann Göring (Crowe) and American psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (Malek). Kelley seeks to better understand Göring’s motives and personality in advance of his trial at the hands of prosecutor Robert H. Jackson (Shannon).
A movie that my my mom will love and my dad will fall asleep to (he falls asleep to a lot of movies), Nuremberg is a solidly made but wholly unflashy drama that dutifully tells its story–without making its case as to why someone should devote two-and-a-half hours to it. Writer/director James Vanderbilt has crafted a by-the-numbers production that isn’t the emotional powerhouse you can tell he thinks it is. And yet, for those unfamiliar with the Nuremberg trials (I had heard of them, but didn’t know the details), it’s an adequately done historical reenactment.
Its greatest strength is Russell Crowe, who immediately sets out to make you forget that he is Australian. Donning what sounds like an impressive German accent, Crowe immerses himself in the role of Göring, an extremely intelligent, confident, and narcissistic military commander who spends his time trying to convince the Americans that he is innocent of what he has been accused of (namely overseeing the Holocaust). It’s not a groundbreaking performance, but it’s Crowe’s best in years.
Unfortunately, the movie also stars Malek, who does his best Rami Malek impersonation. It’s not a terrible performance by Malek, and it may not even be his fault, but his character is so uninteresting and annoying it’s hard to take him seriously. Nuremberg adopts a trope we’ve seen before, that of a mental health professional empathizing or befriending a bad guy to the point where their allegiance is questioned–it can work, but Vanderbilt’s screenplay and Malek’s acting do little to elevate any of his scenes to anything close to great.
If the movie weren’t based on Jack El-Hai’s book “The Nazi and the Psychiatrist,” I would have dropped Douglas as a character altogether and given Michael Shannon more to do. As is, Shannon is good but is trapped playing a rudimentary, one-dimensional character.
Nuremberg isn’t without its entertainment value, but it ultimately works best as an acting showcase for Russell Crowe. Worthwhile only if you love World War II dramas or history, Nuremberg feels like a film from a different, less discerning era.
Review by Erik Samdahl. Erik is a marketing and technology executive by day, avid movie lover by night. He is a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society.